NYC Democrats To Allow 800,000 Illegal Immigrants to Vote

Ensuring the corrupt Democrat political machine for generations to come. Buh bye, NYC.

Democrats on New York City Council to Allow Illegal Immigrants to Vote

From the story: A veto-proof majority of the Council, backed by incoming mayor Eric Adams, plans to allow over 800,000 green-card holders and non-citizen residents with work permits to vote in municipal elections. This is not a small number of additional voters: no candidate for Mayor of New York has received 800,000 votes since Rudy Giuliani in 1993. The immediate objection to the plan, which prompted even Bill de Blasio to veto it previously, is that it violates the state constitution, which provides that “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people . . . provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election,” and that “laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.” It further requires the secret ballot for “elections by the citizens.” No state permits non-citizens to vote.

NYC may soon let 800,000 non-US citizens vote

Bill calls for allowing legal residents and others to vote in city elections

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News November 29, 2021:

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com.

New York City may soon permit hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to vote in municipal elections, while Mayor Bill de Blasio and his successor, Eric Adams, feel differently about the prospect.

The bill aims to amend the city’s charter by including a new chapter with provisions for allowing green card holders and those with work authorization to register to vote and take part in citywide elections through the creation of a separate municipal voter registration. Adams supported the concept when he was campaigning for mayor earlier this year.

“We cannot be a beacon to the world and continue to attract the global talent, energy and entrepreneurship that has allowed our city to thrive for centuries if we do not give immigrants a vote in how this city is run and what our priorities are for the future,” Adams said in February, according to the New York Daily News.

A Board of Election official opens the voting machine after Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa’s ballot got stuck at a polling place on the Upper West Side on Nov. 2, 2021, in New York City.

De Blasio, meanwhile, said on “The Brian Lehrer Show” in September that there are “two problems” with the bill.

“One, I don’t believe it is legal. Our law department is very clear on this,” the mayor said. “I really believe this has to be decided at the state level, according to state law.”

The other issue, he said, is that it undermines efforts to get people to become citizens.

“I think there’s a real set of mixed feelings it generates in me about what’s the right way to approach this issue,” he said.

AOC, OTHER HOUSE DEMS PRESS NYC PROSECUTORS ON ‘EXCESSIVE BAIL’ FOR PRISONERS

The New York Times reports that the bill would allow an estimated 808,000 noncitizens to vote.

Brooklyn Borough President and New York City mayoral candidate Eric Adams listens as President Biden speaks during a meeting on reducing gun violence, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Monday, July 12, 2021, in Washington.

The bill says residents must be living in the city for at least 30 days prior to an election. It also specifies that it only applies to municipal elections and calls for a separate form of voter registration to reflect that.

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to confer upon municipal voters the right to vote for any state or federal office or on any state or federal ballot question,” the bill says.

Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio speaks during the opening of a vaccination center for Broadway workers in Times Square on April 12, 2021, in New York City.

That difference is what leads Anu Joshi, the vice president of policy at the New York Immigration Coalition, to believe the bill would stand up to a legal challenge, despite de Blasio’s concerns.

“Any restrictions that are currently on the books really only apply to federal and state elections,” Joshi told the Times.

The bill is next scheduled for a vote by the city council on Dec. 9.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

World must respond strongly to spate of extremist attacks

Terrorist acts carried out by radical Islamist extremists have begun to return to the forefront, bringing back memories of the scale of destruction and brutality that characterized similar attacks in recent years.

Only last week, Uganda’s capital Kampala was rocked by two coordinated explosions that killed at least three innocent civilians and terrified thousands of residents, who fled the city center fearing for their lives. Ugandan police spokesman Fred Enanga blamed the attack on the Allied Democratic Forces, an extremist group affiliated to Daesh, which claimed responsibility for the attack. He emphasized that there remained a threat of more suicide attacks.

The same warning came out of the UK as its government decided to raise the terror threat level to severe following an attack in Liverpool last week. That incident came just a few weeks after the assassination of Conservative Member of Parliament Sir David Amess.

The UK is expecting more attacks as the holiday season approaches, according to Home Secretary Priti Patel, who warned last Monday that another attack is highly likely. “There is a reason for that and that reason is because what we saw yesterday is the second incident in a month now,” she said following the Liverpool attack.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged the public to remain vigilant, stressing that no terrorist would succeed in dividing the people of his country. “What yesterday showed above all is that the British people will never be cowed by terrorism, we will never give in to those who seek to divide us with senseless acts of violence,” he said.

According to the Guardian newspaper, “the Liverpool attacker was not previously known to MI5, which keeps a list of 3,000 current suspects and just over 20,000 previous ones, or to specialist counterterrorism police officers.” This information is alarming and extremely dangerous, due to the lack of intelligence on the number and locations of radical sleeper cells or lone wolves that have no sympathy for all religions or humans without exception.

When we say that terrorism has no religion or borders, it is not just a slogan for public announcements, but is rather a fact we witness on the ground on a daily basis all around the globe.

The recent developments in Afghanistan will give all radical Islamists around the world hope and motivation. They will believe that, if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. This justifies the increase in concern among the international community.

Daesh is now working on various social media platforms to recruit potential suicide bombers, seizing the opportunity to take advantage of young and uneducated Muslims to implement their agenda and carry out attacks during Christmas celebrations.

A chilling video was spotted on TikTok that targeted Daesh sympathizers and urged them to launch mass-casualty terrorist attacks in the West during the holidays. The US Sun reported that the video described different methods and locations for committing such horrific acts. It attempted to brainwash these supporters and motivate them to kill as many people as possible. This TikTok account has been used by Daesh for the past 18 months, with its videos watched thousands of times.

Click HERE to read more.

Originally published by Arab News

COLUMN BY

Dalia al-Aqidi

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CALIFORNIA: Screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’, charging police with knife Biden Afghan ‘refugee’ shot dead

CLICK HERE FOR AN INTERACTIVE MAP OF APPROVED AFGHAN REFUGEES BY STATE


More of Biden’s build back better assault on the American people.

Afghan ‘refugee’ shot dead in San Fran… Screams Allahu Akbar while charging police with knife

By: Kane, Citizen Free Press, November 27, 2021:

A former Afghan interpreter resettled in California by the federal government was shot and killed last week after charging San Francisco police with a butcher knife and chanting “Allahu Akbar.”

In bodycam footage, 41-year old Ajmal Amani can be seen rushing two police officers with a knife at a residential hotel in south San Francisco. The Afghan citizen can be clearly heard yelling the Islamist phrase in the bodycam, a development that suggests a terrorist motive in the attack.

Watch footage of the shooting here, which occurred after hotel guests and employees reported being threatened by Amani with the knife.  “As Mr. Amani closed the distance, officer 1 and officer 2 fired their respective weapons, striking Mr. Amani. Mr. Amani fell to the ground with the knife nearby him,” a San Francisco Police Department spokesman said of the shooting.

Watch the full video on youtube…

RELATED ARTICLE: Gavin Newsom Now Housing Illegal Aliens In Hotels

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

ALMOST NONE of the 82,000 Afghans Airlifted From Kabul in August Were Vetted Before Coming to the U.S.

My latest in PJ Media:

Back in September, Old Joe Biden’s teleprompter offered some reassurance to the American people: “Planes taking off from Kabul are not flying directly to the United States. They’re landing at U.S. military bases and transit centers around the world. At these sites where they are landing, we are conducting thorough scrutiny — security screenings for everyone who is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.” Will it really surprise you, after ten months of this hard-Left, habitually dishonest administration, to discover that he was lying?

The reality is that almost none of the 82,000 Afghans who are now in the United States after being airlifted out of Kabul in August were vetted first. There could be any number of jihad terrorists and other criminals among them, but there is no way to know for sure until they actually commit crimes. Until then, celebrate diversity!

This revelation comes from a memo that Senate Republicans drafted in October, in which, according to a Wednesday report in the Washington Examiner, “senior officials across the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and Justice described a disastrous screening and vetting process.” This process relied completely on databases of criminals and terrorists, which were incomplete in the best of times and even less useful in the chaotic situation of the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden administration officials accepted at face value what these Afghan evacuees told them about themselves, without making any effort at all to check whether or not the evacuees’ claims were true.

What’s more, the Examiner reports that “the large majority of people, approximately 75%, evacuated were not American citizens, green card holders, Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders, or applicants for the visa.” The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) was given to Afghans who aided U.S. forces during our twenty-year misadventure in the country. As bad as the 75% figures was, it represented a slight improvement over the situation at the beginning of September, when Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted that “of the 60,000 Afghans who have entered the U.S., nearly 8,000 are either U.S. citizens or residents, while about 1,800 are SIV holders, having obtained visas after assisting the U.S. military.” That is, 52,000, or 86 percent, were not U.S. citizens or SIV holders. However, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) noted in early November that as of the beginning of October, only 700 of the 82,000 Afghans who had already been brought to the United States had SIVs.

Biden himself wasn’t the only one who promised that the Afghans they were bringing into the United States by the thousands would be thoroughly vetted. State Department wonk Ned Price was just as firm: “Before anyone who is evacuated from Afghanistan comes to this country, they undergo a rigorous vet. Unless and until they complete that vet they will not be in a position to come to the U.S.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York: Muslim aids Islamic State, says ‘there will come a time where people will only know to say Allahu Akbar’

Biden Administration Didn’t Actually Bother Vetting Afghan Refugees

India, November 26, 2008: Islamic Jihadis Execute Mumbai Jihad Massacres, Apologists Claimed It Was Hindu Terror

Germany: Refugees from Muslim countries protest call to prayer, they had to listen to it while being tortured

EDIORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why the Hammer and Sickle Should Be Treated Like the Swastika

Why do we treat two equally bloody ideologies in such starkly different ways?


f someone were to ask you to think of either extreme of the political spectrum, odds are you would immediately picture a swastika at one end and a hammer and sickle at the other. Regardless of your views on the left-right paradigm or whether or not you subscribe to horseshoe theory, we (rightfully) tend to perceive fascism and communism as the standard ideologies of the extreme.

As such, many of us would also feel rather uneasy seeing those two symbols. Upon seeing a swastika, we are immediately reminded of the evils of the Nazi regime and are accordingly repulsed. To publicly display the logo is even a crime in many European countries. We understand how abhorrent the ideology is and treat it accordingly with disrespect and disgust.

But how do we react to the hammer and sickle? I don’t have to write an article explaining the millions of deaths that occurred at the hands of communist regimes; like the Holocaust, the gulags of the Soviet Union and killing fields of Cambodia are widely known.

Yet journalists in the UK openly and proudly advocate communismStatues of Karl Marx are erected. Even in the US, historically one of the most passionately anti-communist states in history, there is a statue of Vladimir Lenin in the northwestern city of Seattle.

So why exactly do we treat two equally bloody ideologies in such starkly different ways?

“Real Communism Has Never Been Tried!”

The answer may lie the in misperceptions of virtue. Nazis, rightfully, are seen as hateful and vicious because their ideology is built around the idea that one group is superior to the other. It is an inherently anti-egalitarian ideology, a violent belief that was put into practice only once by those who devised it.

As such, there is no justifiable way a fascist could argue ‘That wasn’t real Nazism.’ The same is not true for communism.

On the contrary; we see this argument all the time. Those on the far-left have a whole umbrella of communist styles, from Stalinism to Anarchism, Maoism to Trotskyism, or even just classic Marxism. Since Karl Marx never implemented communism himself, the leaders of communist states always have that get-out-of-jail-free card. Any shortcomings, tragedies, or crises a communist regime faces can always be blamed on a misapplication of Marx’s infallible roadmap to utopia.

Conveniently, communists can always detach themselves from the horrors of the past. They can paint themselves as pioneers of an ideology that simply hasn’t had the opportunity to flourish (‘Real communism has never been tried!’).

In this way, advocates of communism can continue to paint themselves as protagonists. They are only ever fighting for the liberation of the working class and the creation of a workers’ paradise that has nothing to do with the false prophets of before. At worst, advocates of communism are seen as misguided but ultimately well-intentioned.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

This is the nub of the issue. While Nazism is intrinsically linked to the crimes of its followers, communism can always be separated. No one would tolerate a t-shirt emblazoned with Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini, yet the wildly oppressive Che Guevara is easily detached and morphed into a symbol of revolution.

But where do we draw the line? The communist ideology in its purest form might be separated from its implementations, but at what point does its awful track record discredit any attempts to advocate it?

As economist Murray Rothbard once said: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics […] But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

We need to say the same about communism. To continue advocating communism despite its dismal track record is neither well-intentioned nor misguided; it is a deliberate attempt to push a provably dangerous ideology. The history of communism is as bloodstained as that of Nazism; much more so, actually. It’s time we treated it as such.

This article was reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

COLUMN BY

Richard Mason

Richard Mason is a freelance blogger and assistant editor at SpeakFreely.today.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Covid-19 Deaths in 2021 Far Surpasses 2020’s – When There was No Vaccine

More critical data the mad-with-power Democrats are withholding from the American people – that and the fact that the original COVID is all but gone. These vaccine variants are spreading like wildfire.

U.S. Covid-19 Deaths in 2021 Surpass 2020’s

Pandemic continues to exact huge toll despite vaccines as Delta variant spreads

By Wall Street Journal, November 2021:

The number of U.S. Covid-19 deaths recorded in 2021 has surpassed the toll in 2020, according to federal data and Johns Hopkins University, demonstrating the virus’s persistent menace.

The total number of reported deaths linked to the disease topped 770,800 on Saturday, Johns Hopkins data show. This puts the pandemic-long total at more than twice the 385,343 Covid-19 deaths recorded last year, according to the most recent death-certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The spread of the highly contagious Delta variant and low vaccination rates in some communities were important factors, infectious-disease experts said. The milestone comes as Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations move higher again in places such as New England and the upper Midwest, with the seven-day average for new cases recently closer to 90,000 a day after it neared 70,000 last month.

Covid-19 has proven to be an enduring threat even in some of the most vaccinated places, many of which are confronting outbreaks again now, as the world prepares to live with and manage the disease for the long term. In Europe, parts of Austria, Germany and the Netherlands have imposed new restrictions in recent days after Covid-19 cases rose and hospitals came under strain.

The 2021 U.S. death toll caught some doctors by surprise. They had expected vaccinations and precautionary measures like social distancing and scaled-down public events to curb the spread of infections and minimize severe cases. But lower-than-expected immunization rates as well as fatigue with precautionary measures like masks allowed the highly contagious Delta variant to spread, largely among the unvaccinated, epidemiologists say.

“Heading into this year, we knew what we needed to do, but it was a failure of getting it done,” said Abraar Karan, an infectious-diseases doctor at Stanford University.
A doctor checked on a Covid-19 patient in Tarzana, Calif., in September. Experts blame the continued spread of Covid on the Delta variant and low vaccination rates in some communities.
Photo: Apu Gomes/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Among missteps, Dr. Karan said, public-health officials failed to effectively communicate that the purpose of vaccines is to protect against severe cases of Covid-19 rather than to prevent the spread of infection entirely, which may have led some to doubt the effectiveness of the shots. Authorities also failed to use testing to effectively prevent super-spreader events, Dr. Karan said.

Joey Rodriguez, a high school soccer coach in Arlington, Texas, died from Covid-19 complications in October. The 44-year-old father of three was fully vaccinated but had a rare immune-system condition that made him more vulnerable to infections.

He fell ill in August with what seemed like a sinus infection, his wife, Lena Rodriguez, said. When he died after weeks of intubation, some of his friends who had harbored doubts about the severity of the pandemic and the importance of vaccines changed their minds about the risks of Covid-19 and began to take a more cautious approach to the disease, she said.

“It definitely opened a lot of eyes that this pandemic is very real,” Ms. Rodriguez said.

The Journal calculated when the number of known Covid-19 deaths in 2021 surpassed 2020’s figure by using Johns Hopkins and CDC data. The Johns Hopkins numbers reflect a near-real-time count from states, but can lag behind when deaths actually occurred. CDC death-certificate data don’t track the changing pandemic as quickly, but do reflect the actual day of death.

The CDC’s count for 2020 may grow with further revisions. These records are also close to showing more deaths in 2021.

Comparing the two pandemic years is imperfect because the first coronavirus-related deaths in the U.S. weren’t recorded until February 2020, while 2021 began in the grips of a wintertime surge. During just one week in January, the U.S. recorded a peak of nearly 26,000 Covid-19 deaths, CDC data show.
Cars waited to enter a Covid-19 testing site in Omaha, Neb., earlier this month.
Photo: Dan Brouillette/Bloomberg News

CDC data also indicate there was a larger undercount of Covid-19 deaths in 2020, when the disease was newer and a scarcity of tests made confirming some infections difficult. A Wall Street Journal analysis of CDC data shows about 54% of roughly 875,000 excess deaths the agency attributes to the pandemic came last year.

“Early in the pandemic we would have been missing more,” said Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

This excess also reflects collateral pandemic damage, from surging overdose deaths to other medical problems as people avoided hospitals.

Another major difference between the years: Vaccines were in development in 2020, and in arms in 2021. About 59% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, according to the CDC, and some 17% have received booster shots. Studies indicate the vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe disease, though they are slightly less effective against Delta, and authorities are urging all adults to get booster shots to bolster waning immunity.

“The vaccine is not a panacea,” said Ana Bento, an epidemiologist at Indiana University-Bloomington. Dr. Bento was the co-author of an August study in the journal Health Affairs that argued that nearly 140,000 U.S. Covid-19 deaths between the beginning of 2021 and the end of May could have been prevented by vaccinating a larger portion of the population.

Burlington, Vt., this past summer. Vermont has the most fully vaccinated population in the U.S., at 72%.

After heavily affecting coastal states last year, the virus hit hard in the Deep South this year, often spreading quickly through populations with low vaccine uptake, according to health officials.

States hit hard early on in the Northeast had some of the highest Covid-19 death rates per 100,000 residents in 2020, led by New Jersey, CDC data show. New York ranked fourth, behind the Dakotas. Southern states—Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Florida—have had the highest rates this year.

Vermont has the lowest Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 people since the pandemic began, although the state is in a continuing surge. Vermont also has the most fully vaccinated population among the states, at 72%. Mississippi, closer to the bottom of the list with about 47% fully vaccinated, has the nation’s highest death rate since the pandemic began.

“What we’ve been through was not inevitable, and where we go from here is not inevitable,” said Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi’s state health officer, during a recent roundtable discussion of Covid-19 hosted by state officials and streamed on Facebook.

Deaths remain concentrated in older people, CDC data show, but younger people make up a higher portion of the total now because older people including nursing-home residents are among the most widely vaccinated. While 81% of Covid-19 deaths hit people ages 65 and up last year, that group represents about 69% of this year’s deaths.

Deaths among younger people are rarer, but the 20,563 deaths among people under 45 this year are more than double the deaths in this group last year.

“There are plenty of what we call the young invincibles who just didn’t get around to getting a vaccine,” said Olveen Carrasquillo, chief of the internal medicine division at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, “and a lot of meetings with family where they say, ‘Oh he’s so stubborn, we told him to get vaccinated, but he wouldn’t.’”

ANTI-VAXX GLOBAL PROTESTS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Yes, Australian health regulators are threatening doctors with deregistration over Covid-19

ICU Nurse Turns Whistleblower, Exposes SHOCKING Truths About Doctors and Jabs”

Growing Number of Athlete Deaths: Are They Dying After Covid Jabs?

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Sheriff Sued for Reporting Illegal Alien Criminals to ICE

In a distressing sign of the times, the official elected to enforce the law in a major U.S. County is being sued for transferring illegal immigrant criminals to federal authorities. Collaborating with the feds—rather than releasing illegal alien offenders back into the community—compounds racial disparities in the policing, immigration, and criminal justice systems, in which black and Latinx communities are disproportionately targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation. At least that is what the leftist civil rights group that filed the lawsuit this week claims. The scary part is that the local law enforcement agency will probably lose the legal battle because the entire state is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and official measures have been enacted to protect the undocumented from deportation.

The defendant in the case is Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, currently serving his third term as the top cop in the central California county of around 1.6 million that includes the state’s capitol. Jones and his agency are accused of violating California sanctuary laws by reporting illegal immigrants jailed for committing local crimes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon completing their sentence. The offenders are eligible to return to their home and communities in the U.S. but instead are enduring a “cruel double punishment,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney, Sean Riordan, who filed the complaint on behalf of the illegal immigrants. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s “anti-immigrant agenda” harms communities, the ACLU lawyer asserts.

Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a 26-year-old Mexican national, Misael Echeveste, who has lived in the Sacramento area illegally since he was a young child. After serving a six-week sentence for assault and battery at a county facility called Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (RCCC), Echeveste was transferred to ICE and is fighting deportation to Mexico where the ACLU points out “he doesn’t know anyone or have family.” Another plaintiff, identified by the initials M.A.A., was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol without a license. The following day, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office turned him over to ICE, and he was “permanently separated from his family in Sacramento,” the complaint states. The rest of the plaintiffs include three other illegal immigrants arrested by the agency for driving under the influence of alcohol, not exactly pillars of the community.

The lawsuit alleges that “sheriff’s officials unlawfully transfer(ed) immigrants to ICE after they have completed their county jail sentences, rather than releasing them to their families and communities or following proper notification procedures inside the jail.” Specifically, the suit accuses the sheriff’s office of violating two state laws, known as the TRUTH Act and the California Values Act. The first one, which went into effect in 2017, requires that local police give criminals in the U.S. illegally a written notice of their transfer to ICE. The second, which was enacted a year later, forbids all California law enforcement agencies from using funds or employees to “investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” The measure is also known as SB 54, the state’s sanctuary law.

Dozens of cities throughout the nation have passed sanctuary measures to shield illegal immigrants, but only 11 states have enacted blanket laws. Besides California, they include Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Additionally, a growing number of leftist officials running local governments refuse to participate in a federal-local partnership known as 287(g) that notifies ICE of jail inmates in the country illegally so they can be deported after serving time for state crimes. ICE has repeatedly warned that when law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines its ability protect public safety and carry out its mission. Judicial Watch has reported extensively on some of the culprits, providing outrageous examples that include elected law enforcement officials freeing child sex offenders, major counties releasing numerous violent convicts and a state—North Carolina—that discharged nearly 500 illegal immigrant criminals from custody in a year.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bidenites Warn Israel to Stop its Attacks on Iran

The U.S. has issued a warning about Iran’s nuclear program. No, it wasn’t a warning issued to Iran, telling the Supreme Leader that the U.S. was getting fed up with Iran’s stalling tactics, or that it was determined to “lengthen and strengthen” the 2015 Iran deal, or that it was now looking at “all other options” that it might employ to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Instead, it was a warning issued to Israel, the country that is in the gravest danger from Iran’ nuclear program. The Bidenites apparently do not think it “helpful” for Israel to continue its sabotage of Iran’s nuclear facilities and want it to stop. A preliminary Jihad Watch report on this scarcely believable development is here, and more on this is here: “US Warns Israel Attacks on Iran Nuclear Facilities ‘Counterproductive,’” i24 News, November 22, 2021:

US officials have warned Israel that attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are “counterproductive” and are encouraging Tehran to speed up its nuclear program, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

So the Americans – that is, the Bidenites – apparently believe that every attack by Israel intended to slow down Iran’s nuclear program only prompted Tehran “to speed up its nuclear program,” as if it were not already moving as fast as it could. Israel manages to introduce the Stuxnet computer worm into Iranian computers that then cause 1,000 centrifuges to speed up so fast they destroy themselves, and what happens? Iran builds even more, and faster, centrifuges to replace those destroyed. But who is to say that they would not have built more, and faster centrifuges, even without Stuxnet? Israel destroys the nuclear facility at Natanz through sabotage by Mossad agents, and then builds another facility at Natanz, but this time it’s built 50 meters underground, and yet it is also destroyed. But this, we are supposed to believe, is what led Iran to build another facility deep inside a mountain at Fordow. No one can say that the Fordow facility was built because of Israel’s sabotage at Natanz. It might have been in the works before that sabotage. The Israelis are convinced that their many, and various, attacks are working; they have slowed down Iran’s progress toward a bomb, possibly by as much as several years.

I trust the judgement of the IDF and Mossad. They are convinced that attacks meant to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have indeed done exactly that instead of speeding up Iran’s program, as the Bidenites now want Israel to believe, and that Israel’s information from Mossad agents who report on deep demoralization within the Iranian military because of so much successful sabotage by Israel, should be believed. The Stuxnet computer worm, the saboteurs responsible for four major explosions, two of them destroying the nuclear facilities at Natanz, the killing of five top Iranian scientists, have done exactly what Israel hoped: set back Iran’s nuclear project by years. And the Israelis keep coming up with new ways to delay Iranian progress. Perform the gedankenexperiment, the thought experiment, and imagine that there had never been a Stuxnet computer worm, nor assassination of Iran’s best nuclear scientists, nor sabotage of the two Natanz centrifuge plants. Where would Iran’ nuclear program be today? The Bidenites insist we should believe them, not Israel’s Mossad, in their insistence that Israeli sabotage accomplished the reverse of what was intended. All those successful attacks by Israel on nuclear facilities and scientists, we are expected to believe, merely served to speed up, rather than slow down, Iran’s nuclear project. This not only sounds absurd – it is absurd.

Citing officials familiar with the private talks between Washington and Jerusalem, the report said that Israeli officials dismissed the warning and said that they have no intention of changing the strategy.

The Israelis, hard-headed as usual, simply waved away the Bidenites’ advice. They are not about to bring an end to their impressive record of throwing so many spanners in the works of Iran’s nuclear project. Even now they surely have a half-dozen “projects” in the works, including an attack on the facilities inside the mountain at Fordow, which will make use of a new compact MOP (Multiple Ordnance Penetrator), or bunker buster, weighing 5,000 pounds but packing the punch of the 30,000-pound bunker buster in the American armory, the latest advance by Israeli scientists that keeps Iranian generals up at night in Teheran.

The report [about the Bidenites insistence that Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear project were counterproductive] was published ahead of the resumption of talks between Iran and world powers on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that former US president Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The negotiations are scheduled to take place in Vienna starting on November 29.

Talks stalled in June following the election of hardline president Ebrahim Raisi.

According to the report, the US cautioned that Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities may be “tactically satisfying,” but that Iran has been able to resume enrichment, often installing newer machines that can enrich uranium faster.

Iran can resume enrichment of uranium, but it takes time to build facilities to replace those destroyed. And time is what Israel is trying to buy, hoping to set back Iran’s program so that it keeps receding into the distance. And if Iran has newer machines that can enrich uranium faster than was previously possible, it will install them with or without Israel’s destruction of those slower models. The Americans are assuming that these “new machines” were put in service only because Israel had destroyed the previous model. This is the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy with a vengeance. What are Biden and Blinken and Sullivan drinking these days?

The US cited four explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities attributed to Israel and the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Mossad operatives….

So contrary to the beliefs of the Israelis – what do they know, the Bidenites think, about what works and what doesn’t in trying to slow down Iran’s race to the bomb? – those four explosions that they set off at Natanz and elsewhere not only didn’t slow Iran down, but spurred it on, ever faster, as it hopes to race to the finish and to build that bomb. Also sprach Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan. And the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? The Americans must think his reputation as Iran’s top nuclear scientist was exaggerated, or perhaps they believe he was replaced by someone even more impressive, who had been waiting in the wings.

Of all the things that the Biden Administration has done wrong, surely this attempt to convince the Israelis not to act against a mortal threat to the Jewish state is among the worst. The Bidenites’ attempt – I don’t know whether to call it Orwellian or Kafkaesque — to convince Israel that its attacks to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have only caused it to speed up, is both absurd and sinister. The Bidenites don’t want Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear project not because such attacks are counterproductive, but because they make Iran less likely to accept a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, and the Bidenites have their hearts set on achieving that goal. It would be a feather in Biden’s hat, and Blinken’s, they apparently think, to tell the world they “managed to persuade” Iran to return to the 2015 deal which “will accomplish all that we wanted,” because “Iran will now be committed to the original deal.”

In fact, an Iranian return to the terrible 2015 deal would not prevent Iran from its building a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, would do nothing to limit Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East through its allies and proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen, the Kataib Hezbollah militia in Iraq, the Alawite-led army in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and – most worrisome – would allow Iran in 2030 to produce nuclear weapons without any limit.

The Israelis were right to dismiss the Bidenites’ request that they stop attacking Iran’s nuclear sites. Prime Minister Bennett, and IDF Chief Aviv Kochavi and Mossad Head David Barnea know what they are doing while the Bidenites, it is my sad duty to report, know not what they do. Keep up those extraordinary acts of derring-do. Only the Israelis – not people sitting way out of Iran’s missile range in Washington, and desperately eager to make a deal with Iran — can decide what must be done to keep their state and people safe from possible catastrophe.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

German public broadcaster makes Jerusalem jihad mass murderer into a victim

Islamic States uses TikTok to recruit jihad suicide bombers for Christmas jihad massacres

UK: Mosque complains after councillor stops working with its manager, who praised Taliban prayer

Pakistan: Hindu community decides to pay fines imposed on 11 Muslim leaders involved in attack on Hindu temple

Iran deported over 1,000,000 Afghan migrants this year, 28,000 in one week

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

America’s Deadliest and Most Violent Supremacists

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)” – Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” ― George Orwell, 1984


In my lifetime as a career U.S. Army officer I have witnessed those who have done violence against Americans both domestically and abroad. They do violence and create mayhem in a cause that they believe is just. When I and my family were stationed in Germany in the early 1970s we had two groups that targeted the U.S. military and innocent civilians. They were the Baader-Meinhof Gang/Red Army Faction (RAF) and Black September/Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) that attacked, kidnapped and then killed 18 Israeli Olympic athletes and one German police officer in Munich in 1972.

But is violence the answer? Is cruelty the answer? Is murder the answer?

Today I keep hearing the word “supremist” being tossed about by individuals, organizations and politicians. These individuals and groups are not afraid to use violence against those that they label supremacists to make their point. They are not afraid to use government entities, like the IRS, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, FDA, to reek havoc upon those “supremacists” who disagree with them and their ideologies.

It seems our government is using the word “supremacist” to go after: parents, the un-vaxxed, those of the opposing party, states that oppose government intervention and even ordinary Americans who are labeled “supremacists.” Supremacist is word du jour today.

As George Orwell wrote in his dystopian novel 1984,

“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

Who are the real supremacists?

Merriam-Webster defines a supremacist as:

[A]n advocate or adherent of the supremacy of one group a person who believes that one group of people as identified by their shared race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or religion is inherently superior to other groups and should have control over those other groups

In America we believe in equal justice under the law. No-one is above the law. But is this true? Do some people, politicians and organizations literally get away with murder?

It seems like some individuals, politicians and organizations believe that they are above the law.

One of the symbols of a supremacist is the raising of the fist. It shows an allegiance to their cause, no matter how violent and deadly to their fellow citizens.

QUESTION: Who are the true supremacist’s?

The Top Supremacists in America

Supremacists believe they are superior to all others. They demand control of all others. Its obey or perish.

Here’s a list of organizations that have worked to bring America to its knees. I consider them, by their actions, be be supremacists.

  1. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The CPUSA is a Marxist political party in the United States that was created in 1921 as the result of a forced merger between two rival communist factions, each founded in 1919. The FBI reported, “In April 1958, a representative of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) named Morris Childs made important trips to the Soviet Union and China. His purpose: to re-establish formal contact between the CPUSA and these countries.” The FBI under Operation SOLO Operation SOLO was a long-running FBI program to infiltrate the Communist Party of the United States and gather intelligence about its relationship to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and other communist nations. It officially began in 1958 and ended in 1977, although Morris and Jack Childs, two of the principal agents in the operation, had been involved with the Bureau for several years prior. The files range from March 1958 to April 1966. Click here to read about Operation SOLO. Why did this operation stop in 1966? Why isn’t the FBI continuing to look at the CPUSA? Today Biden has nominated Saule Omarova, a Communist, to be the Comptroller of Currency. Omarova posted this on Twitter, “Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best’.” Why isn’t the FBI looking at Omarova who graduated from Moscow State University in 1989 on a Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship?
  2. The Black Panthers. According to the FBI, “The Black Panther Party (BPP) is a black extremist organization founded in Oakland, California in 1966. It advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government. In 1969, the FBI’s Charlotte Field Office opened an investigative file on the BPP to track its militant activities, income, and expenses. This release consists of Charlotte’s file on BPP activities from 1969 to 1976.” Click here to see the FBI Files on the Black Panthers.
  3. The Weather Underground. The FBI reported, “On January 29, 1975, an explosion rocked the headquarters of the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. No one was hurt, but the damage was extensive, impacting 20 offices on three separate floors. Hours later, another bomb was found at a military induction center in Oakland, California, and safely detonated. A domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for both bombs. Originally called the Weatherman or the Weathermen, a name taken from a line in a Bob Dylan song, the Weather Underground was a small, violent offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, a group created in the turbulent ‘60s to promote social change. When SDS collapsed in 1969, the Weather Underground stepped forward, inspired by communist ideologies and embracing violence and crime as a way to protest the Vietnam War, racism, and other left-wing aims. “Our intention is to disrupt the empire … to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks,” claimed the group’s 1974 manifesto, Prairie Fire. By the next year, the group had claimed credit for 25 bombings—including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, the California Attorney General’s office, and a New York City police station. The FBI doggedly pursued these terrorists as their attacks mounted. Many members were identified, but their small numbers and guerrilla tactics helped them hide under assumed identities. In 1978, the Bureau arrested five members who were plotting to bomb a politician’s office. Others were captured after two policemen and a Brinks’ driver were murdered in a botched armored car robbery in Nanuet, New York, in 1981. Key to disrupting the group for good was the newly created FBI-New York City Police Anti Terrorist Task Force. It brought together the strengths of both organizations and focused them on these domestic terrorists. The task force and others like it paved the way for today’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces—created by the Bureau in each of its field offices to fuse federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence resources to combat today’s terrorist threats. By the mid-’80s, the Weather Underground was essentially history. Still, several of these fugitives were able to successfully hide themselves for decades, emerging only in recent years to answer for their crimes. Once again, it shows that grit and partnerships can and will defeat shadowy, resilient terrorist groups. Read FBI records on the Weather Underground.
  4. Anti-Fascist (Antifa). On June 24th, 2021 the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote this about Antifa, “As protests raged in over 140 cities in the United States following the death of George Floyd, U.S. president Donald Trump raised the prospect of labeling Antifa as a terrorist group. On May 31, 2020, he tweeted, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” Attorney General William Barr also remarked that Antifa was present at some of the protests. “There is clearly some high degree of organization involved at some of these events and coordinated tactics that we are seeing,” he said, “Some of it relates to antifa, some of it relates to groups that act very much like antifa.” Barr described Antifa’s tactics as a “new form of urban guerrilla warfare” in the legacy of Mao Zedong. Other officials, such as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Christopher Wray, later pushed back, instead characterizing Antifa as “a movement or an ideology” rather than an organized group…Antifa supporters conduct counter-protests to disrupt far-right gatherings and rallies. They sometimes organize in black blocs—ad hoc gatherings of individuals who wear black clothing, ski masks, scarves, sunglasses, and other material to conceal their faces—use improvised explosives and other homemade weapons, and resort to vandalism. In addition, Antifa members organize their activities through social media, encrypted peer-to-peer networks, and encrypted messaging services such as Signal. Antifa has also adopted anti-fascist symbols on their clothing, flags, and other paraphernalia, such as the two flags of the Antifaschistische Aktion and the three arrows of the Iron Front.
  5. Black Lives Matter/Black Identity Extremists (BLM/BIE). In an August 3rd, 2017 FBI reported titled “Black Identity Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers” concluded, “The FBI assesses it is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African Americans and the perceived unchallenged illegitimate actions of law enforcement will inspire premeditated attacks against law enforcement over the next year. This may also lead to an increase in BIE group memberships, collaboration among BIE groups, or the appearance of additional violent lone offenders motivated by BIE rhetoric. The FBI further assesses it is very likely additional controversial police shootings of African Americans and the associated legal proceedings will continue to serve as drivers for violence against law enforcement. The FBI assesses it is likely police officers of minority groups are also targeted by BIEs because they are also representative of a perceived oppressive law enforcement system.” It was BLM that pushed the idea of defunding the police to create anarchy. Blacks are not oppressed they are now supremacists.
  6. Nation of Islam (NOI). Discover the Networks NOI report states, “The Nation of Islam (NOI) was founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace Dodd Fard, an itinerant salesman. Fard’s movement was composed of  traditional Islamic teachings augmented by, and interlaced with obscure mathematical, Gnostic, and heretical accretions, including an identification of all blacks as “Asiatic.” This message resonated among American blacks who had migrated north, seeking to escape racial oppression and rural poverty. One of Fard’s earliest converts was Elijah Poole, a grade-school dropout and alcoholic Georgian who had moved to Detroit in 1923. By 1931, Poole had become known as Elijah Muhammad, and upon Fard’s sudden and mysterious disappearance in 1934, he became head of NOI. Elijah Muhammad moved to Washington, D.C. in 1935 and began proselytizing for NOI in different cities throughout the U.S.  He advocated the creation of a separate black nation on the U.S. mainland, separate from white society in every way — economically, politically, and spiritually. He claimed that Fard was actually Allah, the reincarnation of Jesus, the prophet the world had been awaiting for the last 2,000 years, and the Son of Man. Muhammad was arrested in 1942 for refusing to register for the military draft; he urged all Muslims to resist fighting against Fascism, and openly favored the Japanese as Asiatic heroes resisting white oppression. In 1965, Muhammad published a 300-page book titled Message to the Blackman in America, in which he explained that Allah had originally created the black race before all others, followed sequentially by the brown, red, and yellow races. The white race, said Muhammad, was created some 6,000 years ago, not by Allah but by a renegade black scientist named Yakub. In Muhammad’s view, “the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils . . . the evil and murderous race…When Malcolm made these revelations, an anathema was pronounced on him and he was suspended from his post as the leader of the Harlem Mosque. He was replaced by Louis Farrakhan, who, outraged at what he perceived as Malcolm’s traitorous disloyalty, denounced him in the NOI newspaper Muhammad Speaks. “Only those who wish to be led to hell, or to their doom, will follow Malcolm,” Farrakhan wrote. “The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil, foolish talk about his benefactor; such a man is worthy of death.” In effect, Malcolm had been fingered for assassination. Ten weeks later, on February 21, 1965, he was killed in Harlem’s Audubon Ballroom by three gunmen with ties to NOI. ” Read the full Discover the Networks report on the Nation of Islam.
  7. Political Islamists (e.g. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the PLO). In a September 1st, 2011 article titled “Radicalization of Islamist Terrorists in the Western World” Ryan Hunter, M.A., and Daniel Heinke wrote, “Modern Islamist extremism emerged in the middle of the last century, but, in its beginnings, was limited to the Middle East. That dramatically changed in the aftermath of the assault on 9/11 when the threat Islamist terrorism posed to countries in the Western world became apparent. While it was not the first time Islamist militants targeted a Western country, the scale of the attack—killing almost 3,000 people and destroying the iconic Twin Towers—demonstrated that the threat from such organizations and individuals had shifted. Since 9/11, that menace continues to transform, and Western societies increasingly must deal with a rise in so-called homegrown Islamist terrorism…CONCLUSION. Homegrown individuals engaging in Islamist extremism are both demographically and socioeconomically diverse, preventing the development of a reliable profile. Yet, all these persons develop a new mind-set as they undergo radicalization. While no typical pathway exists for this radicalization process, three main components include deeply ingrained grievances as the basis for an identity crisis, an elementary Islamist/Salafist ideology providing a sense for one’s existence and sense of belonging to a chosen community, and the individual’s mobilization to join the terrorist movement. The understanding of these distinct components of the radicalization process may help law enforcement and intelligence agencies assess potential cases of radicalization and lay the groundwork for other government or nongovernment institutions to develop defined counterradicalization efforts.” Read the full article by clicking here.
  8. Planned Parenthood/Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Discover the Networks has this history of PP/PPFA, “The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was founded in 1942.  It grew out of the American Birth Control League, which was established in 1923 by the radical social activist Margaret Sanger, who is hailed by PPFA for her efforts to establish “the principles that a woman’s right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights,” and to “establish the contemporary American model for the protection of civil rights through nonviolent civil disobedience.” Today, PPFA is the largest abortion provider in the United States, with some 850 clinics around the country (down from a peak of 938 in 1995). PPFA purports to offer “a wide range of medical and counseling services and health care education,” but its primary business is providing abortion services. In the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the organization increased the number of abortions performed at its facilities by 6.1 percent (over the 2002-2003 figure) to 244,628. At an average cost of $400 per abortion, it is estimated that PPFA took in $104 million from surgical abortions in 2003-2004 — the first time this number surpassed $100 million in a single year — accounting for 34 percent of its $302.6 million clinic income that year. Planned Parenthood completed 138 abortions for every adoption referral it made to an outside agency in 2004…According to PPFA’s 2019-20 annual report, the organization performed 354,871 abortions in the most recent one-year period on record, while providing just 8,626 prenatal services during that same period. As the Blaze.com notes, PPFA “lists millions of other services provided, such as contraceptive counseling, pregnancy tests, and cancer screenings, allowing it to say that abortions only amount to 3% of the services it provides.” In 2009-2010, PPFA received $487,400,000 from the U.S. government. Moreover, the organization’s total net assets topped $1 billion for the first time. Click here to learn more about Planned Parenthood.
  9. Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The FBI states on its website that ALF is, “an extremist animal rights movement—has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF’s operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm “any animal, human and nonhuman.” Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail (Colorado) ski resort in October 1998, which caused 12 million dollars in damages. This incident remains under investigation. Seven terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 2000 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.
  10. Eco-Terrorists Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism. Some recent arrests include eco-terror fugitive Michael James Scarpitti and accused ELF arsonist William Cottrell. Scarpitti, commonly known by his “forest name” of Tre’ Arrow, was arrested by Canadian law enforcement authorities on March 13, 2004 in British Columbia. Scarpitti had been a fugitive since August 2002, when he was indicted for his role in two separate ELF-related arsons that occurred in the Portland, Oregon area in 2001. William Cottrell was arrested by the FBI’s Los Angeles Division on March 9, 2004, and indicted by a federal grand jury on March 16, 2004 for the role he played in a series of arsons and vandalisms of more than 120 sport utility vehicles that occurred on August 22, 2003 in West Covina, California. Those crimes resulted in more than $2.5 million in damages. Between December 8, 2003 and January 12, 2004, three members of an ELF cell in Richmond, Virginia entered guilty pleas to federal arson and conspiracy charges, following their arrests by the FBI Richmond Division and local authorities. Adam Blackwell, Aaron Linas and John Wade admitted to conducting a series of arson and property destruction attacks in 2002 and 2003 against sport utility vehicles, fast food restaurants, construction vehicles and construction sites in the Richmond area, which they later claimed were committed on behalf of the ELF.
  11. The Democrat Party (DP). Discover the Networks says this about the Democratic Party, “The Democratic Party is presently the largest major political party in the United States. The words “Democracy” and “Democratic” come from the Greek roots demos (“the people”) and kratein (“to rule”). As of June 2020, 34% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats, and 29% as Republicans. On the right-left political spectrum, the Democratic Party currently is far to the left of its chief rival, the Republican Party, and also well to the left of the Democratic Party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. The Democrats themselves have a particularly far-left faction in the House of Representatives which is formally organized into the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Other far-left Democrat factions in the House include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, both of which are firmly rooted in the dogmas of identity politics.

The Democrat Party

The Democrat Party is the epicenter of identity politics and is linked with black identity extremist groups like Black Lives Matter. Democrats also are the party of Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood has targeted minorities since its inception. In fact, due to the efforts by Planned Parenthood to abort black babies the current number of blacks is the U.S. wouldn’t be 13% it would be closer to 31%.

Jeffrey Lord, a contributing editor to The American Spectator and a former aide to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, has chronicled the following vital facts about the Democratic Party of 1800 through the 1960s:

  • Seven Democrat presidents owned slaves between 1800 and 1861.
  • Between 1840 and 1860, there were six Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery.
  • From 1868-1948, there were 20 Democratic Party platforms that either openly supported segregation or were silent on the subject.
  • The infamously racist “Jim Crow laws” of the post-Civil War era — mandating segregation in virtually all public settings throughout the South — were passed enthusiastically by Democrats.
  • In the post-Civil War era, the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan had a very close relationship. Columbia University historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” And according to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease, the Klan served as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
  • Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. And the 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
  • Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed by a Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Abraham Lincoln’s Republican ticket in 1864. The law gave blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, file lawsuits, and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
  • Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
  • The Democratic Party’s 1904 platform used the term “Sectional and Racial Agitation” to condemn the Republican Party’s protests against segregation and against the denial of voting rights to blacks. This “agitation,” said the Democratic platform, sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn would bring “confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”
  • Between 1908 and 1920, there were 4 Democratic platforms that were silent on the issues of blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights. By contrast, the Republican platforms of those years specifically addressed the “Rights of the Negro” (1908), opposed lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928), and (with the advent of the New Deal) the dangers of turning blacks into “wards of the state.”
  • At the direction of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Democrats segregated the federal government.
  • The Democratic Convention of 1924, held in New York’s Madison Square Garden, has been dubbed by historians as the “Klanbake.” Hundreds of the delegates present were members of the Ku Klux Klan, which was so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was unwaveringly rejected. To celebrate, some 10,000 hooded Klansmen staged a massive rally complete with burning crosses and calls for violence against blacks and Catholics.
  • Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. But these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks.
  • Thousands of Democratic local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen, and U.S. senators were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
  • In return for election support, three post-Civil War Democratic presidents — Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — agreed to leave the issues of segregation and lynching unaddressed.
  • Three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. House of Representatives came from Democrats, as did four-fifths of the opposition in the Senate. That opposition included such figures as future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Al Gore.
  • The Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor — who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil-rights protestors in the 1960s — was a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
  • In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson launched a massive expansion of FDR’s New Deal welfare state that Johnson called the Great Society. One day when he was aboard Air Force One, Johnson confided in two like-minded governors regarding his underlying intentions for the Great Society programs, saying: “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” In short, he saw government giveaways as a way of buying the allegiance of a permanent, ever-dependent voting bloc for the Democratic Party.
  • In a similar spirit, Johnson said on another occasion: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

In a January 2010 Wall Street Journal article titled “The Fall of The House of Kennedy,” Daniel Henninger pointed out what had been a watershed moment for the Democratic Party 48 years earlier:

“In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy’s order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities. This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers’ National Education Association. They broke the public’s bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members’ dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

“They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss. The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions. This tax-and-spend milieu became the training ground for their politicians.”

Conclusion

Discover the Networks gives this analysis of the current Democrat Party:

In the aftermath of Khrushchev’s 1956 revelations about Stalin’s horrific abuses, most of the world’s Communist parties abandoned Stalinism and, to varying degrees, adopted the moderately reformist positions of the new Soviet First Secretary. The American far left likewise sought to distance itself from Stalin, rebranding itself as the so-called “New Left,” a counter-cultural movement that would hold fast to the overriding ideals of Marxism-Leninsim while formally abjuring the horrific crimes of Stalinism. But before long, this New Left would romanticize the neo-Stalinists of the Third World, embracing a whole new set of totalitarian heroes such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel CastroPol Pot, and Daniel Ortega.

The core of the early New Left was formed by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical organization that aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and help America’s enemies emerge victorious on the battlefield in Vietnam. Many key SDS members were “red-diaper babies,” children of parents who had been Communist Party members or Communist activists in the 1930s.

As U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated in 1965, SDS membership grew exponentially and the New Left became increasingly radicalized with anti-American hatred and a growing tendency to pose conflicts in terms of “us” and “them” – “the movement” on one side, and “the system” or “the establishment” on the other. Liberals were reviled as part of the latter faction, and deviation from the radical agenda was viewed as political treason. For example, New Leftists excoriated the black pacifist Bayard Rustin for advocating coalition politics and opposing “one-sided anti-American” rhetoric; Staughton Lynd accused Rustin of “apostasy.”

By the middle of 1965, New Leftists no longer referred to themselves as part of American society, rarely if ever using the pronouns “us” or “our” when referring to American people or ideals. For a growing number, nothing less than revolutionary transformation, by way of violence in the streets, would suffice.

By the early 1970s, however, the openly defiant and revolutionary New Left had spent its political capital and was a dying movement. But its adherents remained committed to the cause, altering their tactics so as to work within the political and social system in a manner the New Left had previously chosen not to do. These latter-day leftists incorporated the tactics of Saul Alinsky, seeking to change society by first infiltrating its major institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government – and then implementing policies from those positions of power.

Most notably, the ex-New Leftists found a home in the Democratic Party. By 1972, they had seized control of the party, as evidenced by the nomination of George McGovern as the Democratic presidential candidate on an antiwar platform that cast America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia as an immoral, imperialistic venture. Though McGovern lost 49 of the 50 states in the 1972 election, he and the anti-war radicals who flocked to his campaign moved the Democratic Party dramatically to the left. By way of its political ascendancy within the Democratic Party, the New Left, in a political sense, effectively killed off the classical centrist liberals who had vigorously opposed Communist totalitarianism. After accomplishing this parricide, the New Left occupied the corpse of authentic liberalism (i.e., the Democratic Party) and appropriated the name, “liberalism.”

As we have written, the party of JFK died when he did on November 22nd, 1963. The new Democrats are Marxists/Leninists/Socialists.

If you do not believe this then just look at the Biden administration and its policies.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Increasingly Secret History Of The Racist Democrats

‘I Hope You Die’: The Murderous ISIS Jihadi From New York City You Heard Nothing About

My latest in PJ Media:

Ali Saleh, 28, was born and raised in the Jamaica, Queens neighborhood of New York City, in idyllic circumstances: according to court documents, he came “from a loving home, surrounded by parents and siblings, and was both educated and employed.” Yet despite the fact that we are constantly told that ignorance and deprivation cause terrorism, Saleh’s enviable upbringing didn’t prevent him from turning to the dark side. Wednesday, he was sentenced to thirty years in prison after pleading guilty to aiding the Islamic State (ISIS). He gives every indication of being as hardcore an adherent as the jihad terror organization ever had. And one question that no one seems to be asking is: Where did he get these ideas in Queens?

In addition to the 30 years for aiding ISIS, Saleh was also sentenced Wednesday to eight years and four months in prison for assaulting a federal correctional officer. According to the Justice Department, “on July 13, 2018, at approximately 12:35 p.m., while a senior correctional officer was retrieving trash through an access slot of Saleh’s cell, Saleh reached through the slot and slashed the officer with an improvised knife, lacerating the officer’s right forearm and damaging the officer’s radial nerve.  Saleh smiled at the officer and said, ‘I hope you die.’” Charming guy.

That was after Saleh amassed a long record of support for the world’s most brutal and murderous jihad terror group. Matthew G. Olsen, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, stated that “Saleh made numerous attempts to travel overseas to join ISIS, and when those efforts failed, attempted to assist others in joining the terrorist organization.”

Saleh made his loyalties abundantly clear. On July 10, 2014, he wrote online: “We are going to see a lot of be headings [sic] of American soldiers and I want front row seats.” Then on August 25, 2014, he declared: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.” Three days later, he added: “Lets [sic] be clear the Muslims in the khilafah [caliphate] need help, the one who is capable to go over and help the Muslims must go and help.” He also wrote: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.”

Saleh made reservations that day to fly to Turkey, from which he was presumably planning to make his way in to the Islamic State’s domains, but his parents stopped him by taking away his passport. Thus stymied, Saleh began helping ISIS in other ways. In October 2014, he sent $500 to a Muslim in Mali to help him get to Islamic State domains. He also aided others who wanted to help the Islamic State.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR on Rittenhouse: Hard to imagine ‘black or Muslim defendant in the same circumstances being found not guilty’

NYC: Muslim activist denounces priest as ‘Christian dog’ for criticizing Islam: ‘I will beat the crap out of him’

Biden’s handlers warn Israel that a strike against Iran’s nuclear program would be ‘counterproductive’

Masood Khan: The Jihad Terror Supporter Pakistan Has Sent to the Land of the Free

‘It is Time to Break the False Gods’: ISIS Magazine Calls for Destruction of Hindu Idols in India

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

With U.S. Foreign Policy In a Shambles, Secretary of State Blinken Finds Something to Celebrate

My latest in PJ Media:

Those who helped us out during our long military misadventure in Afghanistan only to be left behind in Kabul know that Joe Biden’s handlers are not the most reliable people in the world, but there is one thing they can always be counted on to be, and that is tone deaf. And so on Sunday morning, Secretary of State Antony Blinken looked out on what he had wrought. He saw China emboldened, Afghanistan lost, and Iran more aggressive than ever, and he took to Twitter to give us the perfect response to all the fires he and his colleagues have started or made rage hotter than ever. He tweeted: “Humbled to reach one million Twitter followers as Secretary of State — and especially so because it means that I can share the outstanding work of our @StateDept team with so many at home and around the world. It’s a privilege. Thank you.”

The “outstanding work” of our State Department? You have to admire the man’s chutzpah. To head the State Department during Joe Biden’s dumpster fire regency for Kamala Harris, with the Taliban enjoying billions of dollars’ worth of American military equipment, and China sending increasingly threatening signals about invading Taiwan, and the Islamic Republic of Iran growing more belligerent by the day, and to claim in the face of all that and more that the department is doing “outstanding work,” takes an oddly audacious dishonesty, or a resolute determination to deny the evidence of one’s senses, or both.

Even the fact that Blinken thinks that gaining one million Twitter followers is some kind of affirmation is ridiculous in itself and raises inevitable questions about the man’s priorities. Most of his Twitter feed gives the impression that he is simply a glorified goodwill ambassador; in another tweet on Sunday, Blinken wrote: “Such a pleasure chatting with Senegalese fashion industry icons Xalil and Milcos, who are both @StateIVLP alumni. They are doing dynamic work in Dakar and exemplify the important role artisans and entrepreneurs can play in growing their economies and increasing prosperity.” I’m sure Xalil and Milcos do wonderful work, but this is the Secretary of State of the United States; you’d think he would be embarrassed to be reduced to tweeting about something as world-historical as Senegalese fashion icons. But one of the many things that are beyond the capabilities of Biden’s handlers is embarrassment.

When Blinken does tweet about more pressing matters, he only underscores his own impotence. On November 19, he tweeted, “I condemn the Houthis’ detention of our staff and breach of the compound used by our Embassy in Sana’a prior to our 2015 suspension of operations. The Houthis must immediately release our staff unharmed and vacate the compound immediately.” This was over a week after the Houthis stormed the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a and even longer after they took hostages from among its staff. Why did it take Blinken so long to respond? What did he do beyond take to Twitter to issue this empty condemnation?

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Girl says she was beaten by Taliban jihadi for refusing sex, Taliban denies claim

Muslima who suffered burns while carrying out jihad terror attack demands Israel pay for nose reconstruction surgery

Uganda: Security forces shoot Muslim cleric accused of recruiting for jihad group behind recent massacres

France: Teen converts to Islam, plots jihad massacres at soccer stadium, bar, and shop

Muslim who armed jihadi Mohamed Merah, who murdered seven people, is still in France despite deportation order

France: Imam claims Qur’an translations are ‘not faithful to the original texts and have generated an inhuman Islam’

EDITORS NOTE:  This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Negative Impacts of Immigration Policies in California on Its Citizens?

Recently, we have seen an impact of Immigration policies in California on its citizens. As we all know, the country is currently undergoing a significant population increase, and immigration policies in California might affect that growth. It is also important to note that most of the illegal aliens reside in California.

Immigration Policies

The first negative impact of Immigration policies would be the cost involved. It would cost the taxpayers plenty of money. The Los Angeles Times has estimated that the price of educating each California citizen over the years could cost upwards of $5500 per year. It would not be suitable for our economy in the long run.

Secondly, the negative impacts would also be felt in terms of the quality of life. Due to the high population density, many Americans feel less safe. There are more crimes committed by individuals with criminal backgrounds in the United States than in any other country in the world. And it has also been found that some citizens from Mexico are more likely to become criminals due to the climate of fear they have in the U.S.

As more people from Mexico are unable to work in the United States due to the high cost of labor, goods and services would also increase. If the Californian economy depends on the California consumers buying the products and services produced by factories in Mexico, this would also hurt the economy. There will be fewer California consumers out there buying what you are selling! The ripple effect of losing consumer dollars would result in negative impacts on the economy.

Need to Educate the peoples.

One more impact that would occur due to the California immigration policies is the impact on the American workforce. Due to a smaller workforce, businesses will be forced to hire more guest workers from foreign countries. It would mean a more significant strain on already overburdened schools, health care, and social service facilities. Plus, if the American worker is not skilled, he would not be able to do his job because the skills needed are not there. As more California consumers become unemployed, the unemployment rate would increase even higher. Exams4sure is the best place to educate the peoples. Peoples in different cities in the USA covers different kinds of certification to gain the better job for himself/herself. Exams4sure have 3500+ IT Professional Certification Questions for your success.

One positive thing about the above-mentioned negative impacts of the Californian policies on its citizens? One great benefit is the more extraordinary ability for immigrants to contribute to the economy. Because they would have access to better jobs, they would have a greater chance to improve their lot in life. With more people coming into the country, companies will have to increase wages to attract these new workers. And with higher wages, companies will also be able to invest back into the economy, thus creating more jobs.

However, another negative impact would be the increased cost of living due to the new consumers. The consumers would also add to the burden of the already overburdened public sector. If the living costs continue to rise, the state’s budget will be strained to the breaking point, forcing the state to cut down on various services. In turn, more people will find it difficult to pay for the rising cost of living, which will only worsen the already negative impacts of Californian policies on its citizens.

Final Words

Overall, it is essential to understand how the Californian immigration policies can affect the country’s overall well-being. However, one should never lose sight of the positives so that negative impacts are not brought into the picture. As we decide on the future of this great country, we must keep in mind what its strengths are and how to preserve them, especially with the current state of affairs regarding the California economy. Without immigration policies maintaining control, the negative impacts of immigration policies on its citizens would only be felt in the coming years. One should instead focus on conserving and preserving the strengths before trying to add to them through the most invasive measures.

©Mack John. All rights reserved.

‘Palestinian’ flags lead at New York City protests against acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse

What does the “Palestinian” jihad have to do with Kyle Rittenhouse’s right to defend himself? Supporting the jihad and opposing Rittenhouse amounts to being in favor of violent actions against innocent people, and denying those people the right to self-defense. It’s an axis of evil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Palestinian’ flags lead at New York City protests against acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse

Biden Proposes Lifting Sanctions on Iran in Exchange for ‘Interim Nuclear Deal’

Imagine If the FBI Hadn’t Targeted Parents, But BLMers or Muslims with ‘Threat Tags’

Der Stürmer: Media Hides Democrats’ ‘Historic’ Migration Expansion

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Chinese Influence Rising!

The Women’s Tennis Association threatened to pull its business out of China after a Chinese tennis star was silenced and went missing following accusations she made against a Chinese Communist Party leader that he coerced her into sex.  The story is a good reminder why we don’t want to be ‘more like China’ and why we don’t want China corrupting our elites.

Unfortunately, more muckety-mucks in Washington and other halls of power appear to be falling under China’s spell.

Climate envoy John Kerry, who says he’s just the climate guy and can’t be bothered about slave labor in China, owns a $1 million stake in a Chinese private equity fund that invested in a tech company blacklisted for human rights abuses.  The fund is also a major shareholder in a solar panel company linked to forced labor.  Kerry is actively working against Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed Uighur Forced Labor Act.   And here I thought Kerry was just an insane ideologue.  Looks like he has financial motivations, as well.

Chinese telecom giant Huawei, which is tied to the People’s Liberation Army, paid Tony Podesta $1 million to lobby the Biden administration.  Tony’s brother John is very connected, having been Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and in the Obama White House.

Big media companies continue to take money from Huawei to run what is called ‘sponsored content’ in their publications.  The latest examples include the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Reuters, and Politico. Huawei is considered a national security risk, but these supposed honest brokers of the news have no problem spewing its propaganda as long as the price is right.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s husband’s law firm has several clients linked to the Chinese Communist Party and military.  It employs former CCP officials to facilitate its sizeable China practice.  It’s also on record praising China’s economic central planning.

The notorious Adam Schiff, the man who claimed to have solid evidence of Trump-Russia collusion when he didn’t, met in 2009 with a Chinese Communist Party official who used to head up China’s influence operations, it was recently revealed.

Joe Biden’s favors for China go further back than that.  In 2000, while the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden pushed for normalizing trade relations with China and, later, pushed for listing Chinese companies on U.S. stock exchanges.  The financial dealings of Hunter Biden with China are well-known, as is evidence Joe Biden personally benefitted from those dealings.  Last year, Hunter Biden promised to sell his investment in a Chinese government-linked firm and resign from its board.  In October, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to say whether Hunter had done so, as promised.

When I last reported to you on this subject [9/24/21], I gave you several examples of Biden underlings who are also in bed with China.  You might recall a video from some months ago showing a Chinese professor bragging about how U.S. elites have teamed up with China to take control of America.  I recently attended a conference where a speaker said there really is a deep state and it does not have America’s best interests at heart.  If not America’s interests, then whose?  All these tales from the China swamp should give you your first clue.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.